hard heads soft hearts |
|
a scratch pad for half-formed thoughts by a liberal political junkie who's nobody special. ''Hard Heads, Soft Hearts'' is the title of a book by Princeton economist Alan Blinder, and tends to be a favorite motto of neoliberals, especially liberal economists. mobile
Archives
June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 October 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 April 2003 December 2003 June 2004 September 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 March 2005 April 2005 June 2005 August 2005 January 2006 February 2006 January 2009 April 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 November 2009 January 2010 February 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 January 2013 March 2013 May 2013 June 2013 December 2013 February 2014 June 2014 November 2014 August 2015 January 2016 April 2016 April 2017 July 2018 December 2018 September 2019 December 2019 August 2020 January 2021 October 2021 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 October 2022 December 2022 January 2023 June 2023 July 2023 August 2023 September 2023 October 2023 November 2023 December 2023 January 2024 February 2024 March 2024 April 2024 Short List: Brad Delong Yahoo Long List: Arthur Silber The Note Arts and Letters Daily Andrew Tobias Daily Howler Talking Points Memo New Republic Armed Liberal Eschaton Eric Alterman Slate Salon TAPPED David Corn (Nation) BuzzFlash Max Sawicky Oliver Willis InstaPundit Patrick Ruffini National Review Weekly Standard Amygdala BartCop Andrew Sullivan Drudge Report Romenesko Media News Matt Yglesias Daily Kos MyDD PLA William Burton Matt Welch CalPundit ArgMax Hullabaloo Pandagon Ezra Klein Paul Krugman Dean Baker TomPaine Progressive Michael Barone James Howard Kunstler Pundits & Editorial Pages NY Times Washington Post LA Times USA Today Washington Times Boston Globe Stanley Crouch Jonah Goldberg Molly Ivins Robert Novak Joe Conason Gene Lyons WSJ Best of the Web Jim Pinkerton Matt Miller Cynthia Tucker Mike Luckovich "What's New" by Robert Park Old Official Paul Krugman New Official Paul Krugman Unofficial Paul Krugman Center on Budget & Policy Priorities Washington Monthly Atlantic Monthly |
Friday, June 14, 2002
The reason the Republicans chose Starr to argue the CFR case is the same reason that Paal, White & Kelly will get off scot-free. The Republicans realize that almost always the way to minimize political damage from a budding scandal is to refuse to give the allegations any legitimacy. Unless the allegations are simple and compelling enough for the broader public to understand and pay attention to (eg. pardons for cash), or the broadcast media is strongly on your side (eg. Whitewater), or both, you can almost always get away with portraying any allegation as "just more partisan politics" On the other hand, even baseless allegations can be politically damaging if you grant them legitimacy. Whitewater was a fraud, but because Congressional Democrats were unwilling to dismiss the allegations, Whitewater gained the holiest of grails, "bipartisan credibility". That means that the potentially vulnerable Bush appointees are in fact invulnerable. They can't be prosecuted even if they have broken laws, because the Bushies will refuse to appoint a special rosecutor, and they have taken care to fill key DOJ positions with partisan hacks. And short of prosecution, no allegation need necessarily stick, unless the broadcast media is willing to relentlessly pound the administration on it, which they have so far been unwilling to do. Similarly, as the Republicans avoid giving scandalous allegations against them any bipartisan legitimacy, they seek to aquire as much legitimacy as possible for their own partisans. Right now, Starr is seen as a partisan. But after he wins this Supreme Court case, he aquires a shiny new peg, "illustrious Supreme Court Case winning jurist" Kenneth Starr. In other words, Starr is chosen not for the benefit of the Campaign-Finance case, but for the benefit of Starr's reputation, and thus the reputation of the conservative movement. They can afford to do this because they know the Felonious Five will give them what they want no matter who argues the case. As for the McCain-Feingold bill itself, the "60 days" provision is clearly unconstitutional. It is legal to regulate the conduct of politicians, eg. how much money they can accept and who they can coordinate with. It is clearly illegal to regulate the conduct of organizations independent of the politicians. Of course this leads to the question ofwhat do "independent" and "coordination"" mean. I haven't seen a good answer. It could mean either something quite draconian, or something quite lax. Nothing illustrates the henny-penny silliness of the Washington establishment better than their orgy of self-congratulation over this underwhelming piece of legislation. Gore's "Democracy endowment" was a much better, coherent idea, even if it was unrealistic. Maybe after the failure of McCain-Feingold to change things for the better becomes apparent, the cretins (i.e. McConnell, Delay) and the goo-goos , can strike a deal: unlimited donations with full disclosure for the cretins, in exchange for a minimal level of public financing for the goo-goos. a timely quote: "the immediate cause of the German defeat was the unheard of folly of attacking the USSR while Britain was still undefeated and America was manifestly getting ready to fight. Mistakes of this magnitude can only be made, or at any rate they are most likely to be made, in countries where public opinion has no power. So long as the common man can get a hearing, such elementary rules as not fighting all your enemies simultaneously are less likely to be violated." George Orwell, "reflections on James Burnham" |